I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.

Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ?

And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense.

Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.

The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.

Great, but unless it behaves differently depending on what frame of reference it is in it isn't a frame problem. For example if it works differently on Mars than on Earth because of the different orbital velocity.

OK we fully agree on that. But why is it necessary that if the EM Drive were to "work" as space propulsion in some restricted sense, that it necessarily would involve a frame problem? For example, the EM Drive could be given experimental force measurements just due to outgassing (which also would work in space -for a reduced amount of time ), which is a perfectly classical explanation. There are many other theories besides Dr. White's and Shawyer's.

I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.

Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ?

And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense.

Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.

The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.

Great, but unless it behaves differently depending on what frame of reference it is in it isn't a frame problem. For example if it works differently on Mars than on Earth because of the different orbital velocity.

OK we fully agree on that. But why is it necessary that if the EM Drive were to "work" as space propulsion in some restricted sense, that it necessarily would involve a frame problem? For example, the EM Drive could be given experimental force measurements just due to outgassing (which also would work in space -for a reduced amount of time ), which is a perfectly classical explanation. There are many other theories besides Dr. White's and Shawyer's.

Well if it works by outgassing then it is just a rocket and isn't very interesting.

If it works by reacting against something like the quantum vacuum you have to either violate relativity or COE.

You can make something up like it reacts against the local gravitational gradient. But that's just pure invention. That's a science fiction plot not a scientific theory. There are thousands of ways I could make something up ,to explain what I want to believe but thats doing science backwards.

Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.

It could react against the surrounding environment in a way that is not too sensitive to what the environment is.

I had a book of historical experiments... I don't have it any more but to my recollection, almost every important historical experiment had provided measurements with high degree of precision and repeatability, which helped to avoid the situation of many competing theories.

Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.

This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...

...If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. ..

Science is full of experimental results that were found by accident, without meeting the theoretical expectations of the experimenter. Do I need to name them? Probably not, I'm sure you know about them too.

You write about luck. One can state that it is "unlikely" in some intuitive sense, but I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis of what is the probability (do you know of any such Bayesian analysis ?), and hence your assessment of what is the likelihood may be subjective (most humans cannot correctly distinguish what is random from what is not, and they can't assess what events are Gaussian or fat-tailed, as for example most professional traders incorrectly think that the probability of a random event like a crash in the stock market is much less likely than it really is, because they use Gaussian distributions when the real probability distribution is fat-tailed and because they incorrectly assume constant volatility)

In any case, the probability has to be based on at least three independent testing centers: the reason why this is being discussed in this forum, and I'm still here is not just because of Shawyer's experimental claims, but it is mainly due to NASA's Dr. White's experimental report and also due to Prof. Yang's experiments in China.

This may be where Shawyers 2 measurements come from. Either the EM Drive acting in Motor mode, increasing load kinetic energy or in Generator mode, decreading load kinetic energy.

As Shawyers says, an EM Drive in Generator mode would decelerate the spacecraft.

The results shown in line 4 are the forces one would measure if you say pushed the EM Drive in one direction or the other. Push it one way & it accelerates away from you, now being in Motor mode. Push it the other way and it fights your push, now being in Generator mode.

If it works by reacting against something like the quantum vacuum you have to either violate relativity or COE.

Interacting with the quantum vacuum doesn't require violating COE or COM, but it still wouldn't generate any thrust without making additional assumptions that are even harder to swallow, as I discuss here:

...If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. ..

Science is full of experimental results that were found by accident, without meeting the theoretical expectations of the experimenter. Do I need to name them? Probably not, I'm sure you know about them too.

You can state that it is "unlikely" in some sense, but I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis of what is the probability (do you know of any such Bayesian analysis ?).

In any case, whatever the probability has to be based on at least three independent testing centers: the reason why this is being discussed in this forum, and I'm still here is not just because of Shawyer's experimental claims, but it is mainly due to NASA's Dr. White's report and also due to Prof. Yang's experiments in China.

Is there a quantitative agreement between reports in respect of certain variables?

...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.

I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.

I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer. There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.

I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.

Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer. All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).

If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.

So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?

Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...

That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)

I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...

As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past....

....eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks...

There is also 12/ Jan 2015 Copper Frustum 1,937.15MHz in-Air_50W_Forward & Reversed_Data Runs.jpgbut I'm unsure the forward data is different from one of the previous forward plots

The file names are the ones as downloaded from the attached pictures from Paul March contributions to the thread, they should show up when searching directly for them with goggles.I'm looking for a way to tabulate all the corresponding data together with a way to consult the plots either thumbnailed or full size, if anyone has time and patience it would be a great contribution to gather and sum up all the "raw" data together with link to sources when parameters have been explained through posts.

WIP (badly presented and too early) : attached is a first attempt to spreadsheet the data with some very rough eyeballed values... Last 2 columns are derived values : thrust/power and thrust/power/(vertical scale in µN/µm) times a factor to have same mean as thrust/power. Overall, thrust/power µN/W has more standard deviation (5.63) than the one with µm/W units (2.84). Sorry, at this stage this is more just like numerology.

Shawyer wrote (to @Mulletron, in the communication where Shawyer kindly scanned Cullen's paper http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368066#msg1368066 ) about why the posters in this thread had such a hard time understanding his EM Drive theoretical model. Given this reaction, it appears that Shawyer knows of scientists that understand his model. Which leads to this question: do you know of scientists that agree with, or further elaborate on Shaywer's model? It would be interesting to read any such supporting papers that agree with Shawyer's model, as they may contain alternative explanations of his theoretical model. If so, can you reference or link to such papers supporting his theoretical model?

Concerning Cullens' paper, I have been reading it, and I will post my present understanding.

If it works by reacting against something like the quantum vacuum you have to either violate relativity or COE.

Interacting with the quantum vacuum doesn't require violating COE or COM, but it still wouldn't generate any thrust without making additional assumptions that are even harder to swallow, as I discuss here:

...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.

I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.

I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer. There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.

I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.

Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer. All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).

If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.

So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?

Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...

That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)

I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...

As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past....

....eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks...

I think we need to ignore the handwaving when it comes by and make sure we put to full use all the info that Shawyer has provided us, with a focus on the engineering aspects and operational details. We shouldn't get hung up on his theory.

Quoting @TheTraveller:

Quote

Shawyer has been doing this for longer than anybody. My eng gut says follow Shaywer's lead as he has already gone down many dead ends. Why try to reinvent the wheel and repeat his failures?

...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.

I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.

I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer. There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.

I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.

Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer. All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).

If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.

So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?

Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...

That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)

I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...

As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past....

....eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks...

I think I can see where this aggressive stance comes from. It's rooted in how the human mind works. Each individual's world foundation is eventually based on belief. As a scientist, the state-of-the-art is that foundation. For some, even a tiny chance for this belief to prove not right, is (on a subconscious level) such a threatening thing, that this fear expresses itself as a possibly inadequate reaction to what's presented or happening. An individual's belief is the foundation of the world he/she is standing on, which everything else is based on. If that were to be removed, then in their mind it feels like the ground has vanished and they are about to hit a black hole's event horizon.. it would make their life, that they lived so far and full of conviction, a delusion. Not many can cope with this feeling well, in my experience.

On the one hand, I see the importance to also be a caretaker of what was proven to work. It's very valuable. And still - I see humans more as explorers than as caretakers. Religious structures are caretaking facilities. The progress of the scientific world view is not that we can now wirelessly download and watch cat videos in 4K on our smartphones. The progress is that we are not just caretakers anymore - we are explorers. We are adventurers of the mind. Let's try to take care of what is useful and works for us - but let's just see this as stepping stones to further heights of human insight into the wonders of nature.

The energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period. Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.

...

...the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power. When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power. The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer. There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume. I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit...

In ref to the image above, there is wealth of information buried within the earlier pages of this thread. A more accurate representation of what it looks like inside the cavity is available here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333246#msg1333246Paul March was kind enough to attach the Frustrum modes overview 2A.pdf which has all the mode shapes and characteristics of their test article.

Paul March has shown clearly in his many posts that there is a clear correlation between mode shape and magnitude and direction of thrust. This is where input from RF Engineers would be extremely valuable.

Just food for thought, it is worth going back to page 1 and commenting on the stuff starting there. That way the conversation can keep building on ideas.

...I think we may be losing information by the idea of the standing wave model with out considering the power losses (due heating of the cavity and any propulsion) and the transport of energy by [E^2+B^2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html where the stading wave bulges tend to move towards the areas of consumed energy (heating + sparks + propulsion +ect). I was paralleling it to energy consumption in power lines...

I agree in the line of thinking of what is going on in the cavity as more of a wave model than thinking of them as marbles bouncing inside the cavity...

It is interesting to note that as the wave modes travel towards the small end of the cavity they are being squeezed but if the wave peaks are traveling towards the larger end they are experiencing expansion. It looks like as a result we see the increased B field near the tight end of the cavity and small B field near the big end. I almost want to think of this squeezing as a form of propulsion in the form of resistance of the traveling of the semi-standing waves as they transport energy to areas of heat loss.

Can you please answer, according to your conjecture,when the thrust force is measured towards the small end of the truncated cone:

1) Are there any particles being emitted, according to your conjecture, out of the cavity in the axial direction towards the big base ?

[If nothing is being emitted, then there cannot be any propulsion, because it would violate conservation of momentum. If nothing is being emitted, please skip the next question]

2) what particle is being emitted, out of the cavity, in the axial direction towards the big base ?

[for example, if you conjecture that photons are being emitted, even if that conjecture would be true, it would be contradicted by what is claimed, because what is claimed is a thrust thousands of times better than the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket]

So, if you are attempting to explain the claimed thrust just based on Maxwell's equations, I still don't understand your conjecture. If I misunderstood something, please correct me. Thanks.

I have no hypothesis on how we wouuld be pushing out particles from the cavity. I was only speculating that we have traveling modes and not standing modes in the cavity. As a result I noticed that the traveling modes almost appear to be pushing on the sides of the can (cavity) as they travel. I definitly don't think simple light propulsion would produce enough thrust but the modes pushing on the side of the can don't strike me as light propulsion. Maybe I am wrong about that though. I will attach an image which may help others see what I am seeing. I am not saying it is what is going on but just throwing it out there as something interesting that might be going on.

1) In your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang may used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.

If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.

If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.

2) Thermal losses in a vacuum (unless there is outgassing, etc.) cannot support the claimed thrust forces, due to the previously addressed issue (what particles are being emitted, and what is their momentum).

In your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.

If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.

If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.

Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?

I don't think the T-junction is a critical part of the idea and can be eliminated. As long as there is some form of power input.

In your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.

If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.

If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.

Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?

The issue of power dissipation due to the skin effect is fully addressed in the COMSOL Fnite Element analyses, which predicted the measured Q's. The COMSOL Finite Element analysis fully respects conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

There can only be travelling waves if there is a net momentum flux. But such momentum is prevented by the previous arguments based on conservation of momentum (unless suitable emission of particles can support the measured thrust).

Thermal losses in a vacuum (unless there is outgassing, etc.) cannot support the claimed thrust forces, due to the previously addressed issue (what particles are being emitted, and what is their momentum).

All the above is true under linear Maxwell's equations and special relativity. Otherwise one would have to argue for breaking of P T parity, nonlinear anisotropic effects, coupling interaction with outside fields, etc.